Mariotti often treated unfairly by fans, media

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

It was most interesting reading the Chicago Sun-Times sports letters from its fans over the Internet. Their opinions focused on the current feud between Chicago White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen and Chicago Sun-Times columnist Jay Mariotti.

Many printed comments condemned the reporting of Mariotti, while they defended the antics of Guillen. The letters revealed that there was unbending support for Ozzie leading up to the latest incident, without any concern for his questionable use of slurs (e.g. letters):

"Ozzie was defending his team, his city and his organization against the repeated bashing performed at the hands of Mariotti."

And more.

"I have a deep respect for Ozzie and his way of doing things, including his calling Mariotti any name he wants. He is entitled to voice his opinion, even if that opinion hurts someone's feeling."

These comments are fine if you afford Jay Mariotti the same courtesy of "a right to one's opinion," but, obviously, we're dealing with biased individuals here.

Here's the way it works, Chicago fans.

First, a journalist's job is to report stories, although you may not always agree with it. Even when a columnist is opinionated, if facts support a story, be they negative or complimentary, the column should be written.

What fans don't seem to understand is that journalists are not, or should not be, homers. Unfortunately for writers, and rightfully so, fans are loyal to teams. But loyalty can be blinding when your team is criticized.

Sadly, too many in the Chicago media shy away from, or sugar-coat, stories that tend to otherwise infuriate team owners or players and, in too many cases, the fans.

So, some of the media in Chicago avoid the slings and arrows of potentially severe and harmful retaliation (personal attacks and threats) by the powers that are. Their vendetta is subtle and ongoing.

This is not speculation on my part, but is occurring as I write and has been for years concerning Jay Mariotti.

An incalculable number of fans are incapable of rationally speaking out about the current Guillen/Mariotti feud, as their busy lives disallow them to follow, or even remember, the numerous Ozzie incidents that have occurred frequently over a relatively short period of time.

Mariotti is not free from criticism, but those without a keen knowledge of the Ozzie show, who strike out against Jay, are in some cases unfair in their harsh judgment of him.

In the aforementioned, there is evidence that Ozzie's opinions, no matter how harsh, are acceptable. However, they fail to afford Mariotti the same courtesy.

Freedom of speech is a precious right afford by the First Amendment of the Constitution. It seems to me that Jay Mariotti's "freedom of speech" is violated here, when he is viciously attacked with slurs and innuendo, by one who becomes violent, when he, himself, becomes the subject of a person being out of control.

Jay has been a lone voice in the Chicago media for 15 years now. I believe in my heart that it's not always what Jay writes that infuriates some, including many in the Chicago media.

Jay's strength is his courage of conviction. Sadly, some in Chicago interpret this quality as audacious.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.